Why is Corby guilty? (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I think what we're experiencing here is a culture clash that has totally thrown out the need for evidence or anything. It's very... Us VS Them.

 

[hiphophorray123]

i agree with asqy, the people in the best place to make a decision were the judges involved.

80 pages of evidence > misrepresented evidence provided by mike munro and crew during the nightly news.

80 pages???

80 pages saying what....'omg lol she didnt want us to look in her bag' 'she said the bag wasnt hers ROFL' 'guilty until proven innocent'

 

[absolution*]

wtf where did i say it was painfully obvious??

You are a dumb bitch. In addition to setting up a prisoner exchange program we should set up an IQ exchange program, whereby we can lawfully deport morons like yourself. There is a world beyond Jesse Metcalfe and other teen idols. Unfortunately, youre to ignorant to see that.

 

[kaylz]

okay dudes. she's been found guilty BECAUSE their legal system functions differently to ours, no matter how hard we find it to grasp the reasoning behind such a ridiculous verdict. From what I can gather, they have no concept of "reasonable doubt", or "the balance of probabilities" or any of the principles that are central to our legal system. The issue isn't whether it was her that put the marijuana in the bag. It was her bag, as were it's contents. That is satisfactory evidence, apparently, under their system of law. If she can't say who put it in her bag, then the presumption of guilt falls upon her. it's crazy. poor thing. i cried, watching as they handed down their decision.

 

[Korn]

big font again for korn

BECAUSE NO ONE IS CLAIMING IRRATIONALLY THAT SHE IS GUILTY

If anyone said 'omg she is so guilty'...their assertion would be just as full of shit as someone who claims she is innocent

I tend to disagree, I have seen at least one person say she is guilty based on little proof

 

[absolution*]

'guilty until proven innocent'

You go to UWS dont you?

 

[my sharona]

wtf where did i say it was painfully obvious??

You didnt, townie did.

http://boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?p=1552681#post1552681

 

[spell check]

Why should he accept that?
He shouldn't have to accept anything as neither her GUILT nor INNOCENCE has been proven by ANYONE.

All that I think some people are after is an answer as to why so many bogans are out on the streets professing her innocence as if it was such an obvious thing?

he should have to accept it because he keeps whining about it

what is more plausible to you, that a girl who never uses drugs, doesn't know much about drugs, is going to bali to visit her sister etc would just decide to put 4kg of weed in her unlocked bag to sell in bali for a lower price than if it were sold in sydner, or that a racket of baggage handlers, which has recently been exposed as to have been operating on the very day she caught the plane, put the drugs in a random bag in brisbane to be picked up in sydney and sold there for a much higher price.

 

[go_swans]

goodo.... glad to see u got ur facts right! cuz i dont think its painfullly obvious that shes innocent!

 

[my sharona]

goodo.... glad to see u got ur facts right! cuz i dont think its painfullly obvious that shes innocent!

http://boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?p=1552821#post1552821

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showpost.php?p=1552847&postcount=130

 

[Not-That-Bright]

okay dudes. she's been found guilty BECAUSE their legal system functions differently to ours, no matter how hard we find it to grasp the reasoning behind such a ridiculous verdict. From what I can gather, they have no concept of "reasonable doubt", or "the balance of probabilities" or any of the principles that are central to our legal system. The issue isn't whether it was her that put the marijuana in the bag. It was her bag, as were it's contents. That is satisfactory evidence, apparently, under their system of law. If she can't say who put it in her bag, then the presumption of guilt falls upon her. it's crazy. poor thing. i cried, watching as they handed down their decision.

Wow, you're one of the worst Kaylz.

kay dudes. she's been found guilty BECAUSE their legal system functions differently to ours, no matter how hard we find it to grasp the reasoning behind such a ridiculous verdict.

Oh beautiful, the racial/national superiority complex begins!

From what I can gather, they have no concept of "reasonable doubt", or "the balance of probabilities" or any of the principles that are central to our legal system.

I think you'll find they do believe in the concept of reasonable doubt.

The issue isn't whether it was her that put the marijuana in the bag. It was her bag, as were it's contents. That is satisfactory evidence, apparently, under their system of law

Of course it mattered if someone else put it in there, but the defence gave no evidence to prove that this happened, it just said "this is one possible scenario" that was backed up by something a pedophile thought he might have heard in gaol.

If she can't say who put it in her bag, then the presumption of guilt falls upon her. it's crazy. poor thing. i cried, watching as they handed down their decision.

Well... since she can't prove that she didn't put it in her bag, and she can't say prove that anyone else put it in her bag, i guess that since the prosecution did a fairly good job of prooving that it was hers then yes she will be found guilty.

 

[hiphophorray123]

You go to UWS dont you?

oh noes generalisationz

 

[hiphophorray123]

Wow, you're one of the worst Kaylz.



Oh beautiful, the racial/national superiority complex begins!


I think you'll find they do believe in the concept of reasonable doubt.



Of course it mattered if someone else put it in there, but the defence gave no evidence to prove that this happened, it just said "this is one possible scenario" that was backed up by something a pedophile thought he might have heard in gaol.



Well... since she can't prove that she didn't put it in her bag, and she can't say prove that anyone else put it in her bag, i guess that since the prosecution did a fairly good job of prooving that it was hers then yes she will be found guilty.

mate just the fuck up ok you go to UWS

 

[absolution*]

i cant believe i actually agree with NTB

i feel weird


ergghghhhhh.... spazzz

 

[absolution*]

oh noes generalisationz

haha, im so right.

 

[hiphophorray123]

i cant believe i actually agree with NTB

i feel weird


ergghghhhhh.... spazzz

but omg he goes to UWS !!!!!!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

or that a racket of baggage handlers, which has recently been exposed as to have been operating on the very day she caught the plane, put the drugs in a random bag in brisbane to be picked up in sydney and sold there for a much higher price.

Why would there be a need to transport drugs from brisbane to sydney... VIA PLANE, it just sounds much more dangerous and risky then just throwing it in the back of a van and transporting it that way =/

 

[spell check]

Wow, you're one of the worst Kaylz.



Oh beautiful, the racial/national superiority complex begins!


I think you'll find they do believe in the concept of reasonable doubt.



Of course it mattered if someone else put it in there, but the defence gave no evidence to prove that this happened, it just said "this is one possible scenario" that was backed up by something a pedophile thought he might have heard in gaol.



Well... since she can't prove that she didn't put it in her bag, and she can't say prove that anyone else put it in her bag, i guess that since the prosecution did a fairly good job of prooving that it was hers then yes she will be found guilty.

so you think it is a good system that people who are caught with drugs in their luggage would have to prove exactly how the drugs got into their luggage in order to be acquitted of importing drugs?

 

[absolution*]

but omg he goes to UWS !!!!!!

I know, and strangely, even agreeing with him is giving me an eerie sense of IQ depletion.

 

[Korn]

Why would there be a need to transport drugs from brisbane to sydney... VIA PLANE, it just sounds much more dangerous and risky then just throwing it in the back of a van and transporting it that way =/

There is no checks between baggae handlers at airports in Aust. They do checks on truck going interstate